It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Idaho pharmacy board is OK with pharmacist who was OK with woman bleeding to death

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
This quote is from the full story about a pharmacist that was pursued by Planned Parenthood for refusing to fill a post-abortion prescription.


The Idaho Board of Pharmacy says it has no basis to start proceedings against Walgreens in a complaint that alleged one of the drug store's pharmacists in Nampa improperly refused to fill a prescription. A Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest nurse practitioner contended the pharmacist in November abused the state's 2010 conscience law to balk at filling a prescription for a drug that helps control bleeding after childbirth or abortions.

www.bloomberg.com...


Last November, a nurse at Planned Parenthood called a Walgreen's pharmacy to fill a methergine prescription for her patient. Methergine is used to prevent or treat bleeding from the uterus. It is prescribed following procedures involving the uterus, including childbirth and abortion. Rather than do her job and fill the prescription so the patient would not risk bleeding to death, the pharmacist demanded to know whether the patient had undergone an abortion. This information is, of course, irrelevant to counting pills and putting them in a bottle, as is a pharmacist's job, and an invasion of the patient's right of privacy.

"The pharmacist invoked the state's new so-called conscience clause that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives and abortifacient drugs, among other things, if they have a personal problem with it."

Full story; www.dailykos.com... , www.dailykos.com...

All providers that are dealing with a specific patient can and should know all of the patient's health information. The pharmacist does more than this nurse says of just putting pills in a bottle and handing them to the patient. The pharmacist has to make sure it is safe for the patient, requiring complete patient information.

Good decision by the Idaho board not to take action against the pharmacist. Whether or not you favor abortion, it is considered 'freedom of choice'. I think choices should extend to health care providers as well, they should not be forced to do things they do not agree with.

Curious what you all think about this story and should providers be forced to partake in medical care they morally oppose?




posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I think the Idaho Board of Pharmacy did the right thing by not pursuing any action against the pharmacist. Not only that, it was also a hit at Planned Parenthood, which has it's roots in eugenics. People shouldn't be forced or coerced to do anything, especially if it goes against their conscience. Not only that, there's a pharmacy in every Wal Mart and grocery store. They aren't hard to come by.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

This information is, of course, irrelevant to counting pills and putting them in a bottle, as is a pharmacist's job, and an invasion of the patient's right of privacy.


This person is highly ignorant as to the job of a pharmacist!



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by BenIndaSun
Curious what you all think about this story and should providers be forced to partake in medical care they morally oppose?


The pharmacist's so-called "morality" lead to the death of a woman. A pharmacist should not be permitted to override the recommendations of medical doctors and nurses on moral grounds.

How far should that go? Perhaps the pharmacist won't dispense pain medication because they morally object to the potential for abuse or addiction. Maybe they won't dispense a cough medicine or other tincture because their moral code mandates no consumption of alcohol.

A pharmacist's job is to provide a service, not to affect the lives of others based on their "morality". This is preposterous.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by BenIndaSun
 





Whether or not you favor abortion, it is considered 'freedom of choice'. I think choices should extend to health care providers as well, they should not be forced to do things they do not agree with.


The abortion was over and done, this was nothing more then punishing the patient. What does the anti-abortion crowd call them selves? Oh, yea, "Right to Life", well only if you live by their rules. This is not the same as refusing to give out the abortion pill, this was murder by self righteousness.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



A pharmacist should not be permitted to override the recommendations of medical doctors and nurses on moral grounds.


You clearly don't know the role of a pharmacist and seem to have too much confidence in a medical doctors knowledge of medications.


Medication interaction and contraindications are a big problem in the health care industry. It is the PHARMACISTS main job to know about these interactons and contraindications. The medical doctors main job is to diagnosis and treat...they are usually not very good at recognizing potential contraindications with medications (either with other medications or other conditions).

Plus....this was an Advanced Practice Nurse...who I think are some of the most dangerous people in the medical field because they are a Nurse with a doctorate in Nursing (not the years of education and training doctors have)....but love to act like a doctor and bypass doctors advice.


I see absolutely nothing wrong with what the pharmacist in this case did...they stayed within the law.
edit on 6-2-2011 by MindSpin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I guess moral decision making should be extended to all areas of business. That`s what a pharmacy is, right? A business? The pharmacist gets paid to do a job, right? And yes, this job includes consideration for what is healthiest for the patient. So is bleeding to death the most healthy option? Wow what a wonderful person, I`m glad they didn`t punish him, they ought to give him an award. Now 2 people died instead of just 1. Two wrongs really Do make a right sometimes, especially when you have morality on your side! Yay! As I was saying, we should extend this type of thinking to all business transactions... When a drug addict comes in AFTER they already did the drug and od`d, any hospital employee, be it a nurse, doctor, or administrative worker, should be allowed to refuse them service with no fear of losing their job because they might not agree with drugs... therefore, let the person die. When I used to work fast food, I should`ve been allowed to deny service to folks who were, in my opinion, overweight, because then I could sleep better at night. A police officer who responds to a domestic dispute and finds a woman battered by her husband should have the right to first ask if the woman has accepted Jesus into her life, or Allah, or whatever religion is best in his moral opinion, before he arrests the man, because after all, she could be inviting sin into her life and we don`t want to arrest an innocent man now do we? After all, he could merely be a victim of her devilish ways, or perhaps he was he was only trying to help, by beating the demons out of her... it all depends on the set of morals the person in charge happens to follow. Nevermind that they are PAID TO DO A JOB...


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Oh come On
this pharmacy was not the only one in town
and if the woman was bleeding to death pp shouldn't have released her
and she should have gone to a Real doctor .



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by AmericanDaughter
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Oh come On
this pharmacy was not the only one in town
and if the woman was bleeding to death pp shouldn't have released her
and she should have gone to a Real doctor .

Have you ever been bleeding to death? Driving all over town is certainly the smartest thing to do in that situation...

/sarcasm



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 





Medication interaction and contraindications are a big problem in the health care industry. It is the PHARMACISTS main job to know about these interactons and contraindications. The medical doctors main job is to diagnosis and treat...they are usually not very good at recognizing potential contraindications with medications (either with other medications or other conditions).


If there were any interactions or contraindications, none were mention in the article. The only reason the self righteous pharmacist refused to give the drug, was that is was a post abortion therapy..So your diatribe against Advanced Practice Nurses is out of place in this thread. And let us remember this was in Idaho, the Mississippi of the NW which spends the second lowest amount per pupil for education. A truly enlighten bunch.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by havenvideo
 

did you read the article?
pp called the pharmacy
the poor woman of choice should have been put into an ambulance and sent to a Real Doctor from pp
obviously pp did a poor job all around.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
You clearly don't know the role of a pharmacist and seem to have too much confidence in a medical doctors knowledge of medications.


Medication interaction and contraindications are a big problem in the health care industry. It is the PHARMACISTS main job to know about these interactons and contraindications.


Great. That's a service they should provide. That is not parallel to what occurred in this case. This was a case of a pharmacist deciding whether or not they'd dispense medicine by judging the motives and behavior of the customer and pretending that their moral judgment was a "right", and perhaps it was an issue of "force".

Bottom line: they withheld medicine which may have prevented a person's death. This is not an issue of moral rights. It's negligent homicide.


edit on 6-2-2011 by traditionaldrummer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



Bottom line: they withheld medicine which may have prevented a person's death. This is not an issue of moral rights. It's negligent homicide.



Nobody died...read the article.


The patient got the medication at another pharmacy...and didn't die.


Idaho law allows for what the pharmacist did. If you don't like the law...then petition that law...don't take it out on the pharmacist that exercised their right to make a decision that is allowed to them by law.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by BenIndaSun
 


i disagree, im a nurse, and i dont think the pharmacist has any right to know the details of the patient, it is a doctors job to diagnose, its a nurses job to treat and its a pharmacists job to fill out the prescriptions that the doctor has prescribed.

if a pharmacist has a personal belief against abortion then perhaps the pharmacist should seek another form of employment, whoever actually passed that law that a pharmacist can refuse to fill out a prescription due to personal beliefs is utter nonsense!


a pharmacist can advise customers on over the counter medication, but when a prescription has been written by a doctor then that prescription should be filled out, why must a woman bleed to death purely because the pharmacist doesnt want to give her the drug she needs....

edit on 6-2-2011 by NWOnoworldorder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by doctor j and inmate c5779
 


no its not a pharmacists job to decide whats best for the patient WHEN IT COMES TO PRESCRIPTIONS WRITTEN BY A DOCTOR

a pharmacist can help with minor ailments and suggest over the counter medicines not to override the decision made by the doctor....



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
The Pharmacist did not ask about other medications that the patient was on, he asked if she had an abortion which is VASTLY outside his realm of responsibility. I can understand a pharmacist asking about other medications in order to catch harmful interactions, but that is the limit of his judgment. If the pharmacist has a question about a interaction , he is to call the prescribing doctor and the DOCTOR makes the ultimate decision.

If the pharmacist wanted to make medical decisions, he should have went to medical school and became a MD, until then he has no business making medical decisions.

If he has reservations about dispensing a legally prescribed product, he needs to find another line of work or go to medical school and become qualified to make medical decisions himself.

The state law is an example of non-medical people making health care decisions, and should be stuck down in the judicial system.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOnoworldorder
reply to post by BenIndaSun
 


i disagree, im a nurse, and i dont think the pharmacist has any right to know the details of the patient,


Since when do pharmacists not have the right to know details about patients? It's required by most state laws that they keep a current, complete and accurate patient profile if they are to dispense a prescription. And if you read HIPAA, as a direct provider(had it been filled) they have access, and the legal right to patient health information.

For whatever reason, either the patient or nurse in this story did not want to tell the pharmacist what the medication was for. A pharmacist can be liable if they dispense without knowing everything about the patient, therefore if information is not provided, they don't have to dispense.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmericanDaughter
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Oh come On
this pharmacy was not the only one in town
and if the woman was bleeding to death pp shouldn't have released her
and she should have gone to a Real doctor .



You remind me of that episode of southpark with Captain Hindsight.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by BenIndaSun
I think choices should extend to health care providers as well, they should not be forced to do things they do not agree with.


Do you also agree Muslim cabbies have the right to refuse a rider because they have alcohol in their possession?

That is ridiculous. Pharmacists need to be required to fulfill any prescription written by a patients doctor. They are not in the position to refuse on personal belief.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



Bottom line: they withheld medicine which may have prevented a person's death. This is not an issue of moral rights. It's negligent homicide.



Nobody died...read the article.


The patient got the medication at another pharmacy...and didn't die.


Idaho law allows for what the pharmacist did. If you don't like the law...then petition that law...don't take it out on the pharmacist that exercised their right to make a decision that is allowed to them by law.


Well damn. I'm going back to school to become a Pharmacist. I'll actively refuse every single prescription! I literally won't have to do anything at work!
edit on 6-2-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join